DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to for the following:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ginetti et al. (US 2013/0290834 A1).
As in Claim 1, Ginetti teaches a content updating method, comprising:
in response to an editing operation for first target content of a first document, editing the first target content of the first document (see at least FIGS. 4-8, pars. 36-51, for example, the system receives an editing operation for elements of a document A (e.g., document A 451.1 as an active document in a window 420 of FIG. 4 or document A 851.1 in window 820 of FIG. 8), wherein editing operation includes adding, deleting, moving, or otherwise modifying elements of the active document); and
executing processing, corresponding to the editing operation, on second target content in a second document according to the editing operation, wherein the first target content and the second target content have a reference relationship (see at least FIGS. 4-8, pars. 36-51, based on the editing operation, the edits are synchronized and displayed in other documents (e.g., background documents B 455.1 of FIG. 4 or document B 855.1 of FIG. 8), the documents being connected by micro-bumps).
As in Claim 2, Ginetti teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Ginetti further teaches that wherein the executing the processing, corresponding to the editing operation, on the second target content in the second document according to the editing operation comprises:
in response to the editing operation being a drag operation for the first target content, keeping a display state of the second target content in the second document unchanged; or
in response to the editing operation being another operation than the drag operation for the first target content, editing the second target content in the second document according to the editing operation (see FIGS. 4-8, pars. 36-51, for example, in FIG. 8 and par. 50, the element can be added, deleted, moved, or otherwise changed in document A 851.1 in window 1).
As in Claim 3, Ginetti teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Ginetti further teaches that the first target content comprises at least two content blocks (see FIGS. 10 and 12, pars. 54, 60, 64-65, elements 1012.1-1012.N of FIG. 10 or 1211.1-1211.N of FIG. 8); and the editing the second target content in the second document according to the editing operation comprises (pars. 54, 60, 64-65; further see pars. 36-51):
in response to the editing operation being a position exchange operation for first and second content blocks in the first target content, performing position exchange on the corresponding first and second content blocks in the second target content; or
in response to the editing operation being a drag operation for a third content block in the first target content, deleting the corresponding third content block in the second target content; or
in response to the editing operation being to add a sixth content block between fourth and fifth content blocks in the first target content, adding the sixth content block between the corresponding fourth and fifth content blocks in the second target content; or
in response to the editing operation being a modification operation for the first target content, modifying corresponding content in the second target content (pars. 36-37, 65, and 69, alignment adjustments or other edits to the elements (e.g., die)); or
in response to the editing operation being a deletion operation for the first target content, deleting the second target content (pars. 36-51, for example, in FIG. 8 and par. 50, the element can be added, deleted, moved, or otherwise changed in document A 851.1 in window 1).
As in Claim 5, Ginetti teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Ginetti teaches that
wherein the first target content comprises at least two content blocks (see FIGS. 10 and 12, pars. 54, 60, 64-65, elements 1012.1-1012.N of FIG. 10 or 1211.1-1211.N of FIG. 8; see rejection for claim 3) ; and the editing the first target content of the first document comprises (pars. 54, 60, 64-65; further see pars. 36-51):
in response to the editing operation being a position exchange operation for first and second content blocks in the first target content, performing position exchange on the corresponding first and second content blocks in the first target content; or
in response to the editing operation being a drag operation for a third content block in the first target content, dragging the third content block in the first document from a first position to a second position; or
in response to the editing operation being a drag operation for the first target content, dragging the first target content in the first document from a third position to a fourth position; or
in response to the editing operation being to add a sixth content block between fourth and fifth content blocks in the first target content, adding the sixth content block between the corresponding fourth and fifth content blocks in the first target content; or
in response to the editing operation being a modification operation for the first target content, modifying corresponding content of the first target content (pars. 36-37, 65, and 69, alignment adjustments or other edits to the elements (e.g., die)); or
in response to the editing operation being a deletion operation for the first target content, deleting the first target content (FIG. 8 and par. 50, the element can be added, deleted, moved, or otherwise changed in document A 851.1 in window 1).
As in Claim 6, Ginetti teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Ginetti further teaches establishing, in the second document, the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content in the first document (pars. 34, 36, 41, 53, 56, 64, 67, every element and object in the active document, as well as the corresponding connected elements in the background document, are linked by micro-bumps).
As in Claim 7, Ginetti teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Ginetti further teaches that the first target content comprises at least two content blocks, and the establishing, in the second document, the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content in the first document comprises (FIGS. 10 and 12, pars. 54, 60, 64-65):
combining the corresponding at least two content blocks in the second target content into a whole content block, and establishing a reference relationship between the whole content block and the first target content (FIGS. 10 and 12, pars. 54, 60, 64-65).
Claims 10 and 11 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 14 and 21 are substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 15 and 22 are substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 4, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginetti et al. (US 2013/0290834 A1) in view of Kleppner et al. (US 2013/0212250 A1).
As in Claim 4, Ginetti teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Ginetti further teaches that if the first target content references the second target content, and a user performing the editing operation has an editing permission for the first document, the method further comprises: acquiring an editing permission of the user for the second document; and if the user has the editing permission for the second document, executing the editing the first target content of the first document.
However, in the same field of the invention, Kleppner teaches that if the first target content references the second target content, and a user performing the editing operation has an editing permission for the first document, the method further comprises: acquiring an editing permission of the user for the second document (pars. 40, 42, 54, 90-91, 106, the document collaboration system 100 enforces permission of edits by controlling which user can access or modify electronic documents 110/150. Based on user permission and access control, edits made to a document can be synchronized across all collaborators); and
if the user has the editing permission for the second document, executing the editing the first target content of the first document (pars. 40, 42, 54, 90-91, 106, based on user permission and access control, edits made to a document can be synchronized across all collaborators).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for synchronizing the connected documents based on the edit on the document, as taught by Ginetti, and to synchronize the respective documents in the collaboration based on the edits on the document with the permission, as taught by Kleppner. The motivation is to ensure secure and controlled editing while keeping all collaborator’s views of a document consistent in real time.
Claims 16 and 23 are substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginetti et al. (US 2013/0290834 A1) in view of Isidore, Eustace P. (US 2011/0055688 A1) and further in view of Reddy et al. (US 11233852 B1).
As in Claim 8, Ginetti teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Ginetti further teaches that wherein the establishing, in the second document, the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content in the first document comprises (pars. 54, 60, 64-65; further see pars. 36-51):
Ginetti does not appear to explicitly teach: in response to a copy operation for the first target content in the first document, copying the first target content; in response to a paste operation in the second document, pasting the first target content to the second document to generate the second target content, and displaying a reference control; and in response to a triggering operation for the reference control, establishing the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content.
However, in the same field of the invention, Isidore teaches: in response to a copy operation for the first target content in the first document, copying the first target content (pars. 6-9, 19-20, 53, the user may select content to be copied or moved in a document);
in response to a paste operation in the second document, pasting the first target content to the second document to generate the second target content (pars. 6-9, 19-20, 53, the copied content can be moved or inserted across multiple documents).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for synchronizing the connected documents based on the edit on the document, as taught by Ginetti, and to copy the content from one document and past into other document, as taught by Isidore. The motivation is to speed up editing, and allow precise, efficient placement of content across one or multiple documents.
Ginetti and sidore do not teach displaying a reference control; and in response to a triggering operation for the reference control, establishing the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content.
However, in the same field of the invention, Reddy teaches displaying a reference control (FIGS. 3A-3C, col. 17, lines 11-35, sync buttons 306 and 308); and
in response to a triggering operation for the reference control, establishing the reference relationship between the second target content and the first target content (FIGS. 3A-3C, col. 16, line 63 to col. 17, line 44, multiple users can work with local copies of the same content, where each user’s local copy can be independently viewed and edited. With the sync buttons, their local copy is updated to match the current state of the presenting user’s local copy, including changes in content.; further see col. 7, lines 15-34, col. 11, lines 40-56, col. 11, line 64 to col. 12, lines 60, col. 14, line 57 to col. 15, line 34 ).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for synchronizing the connected documents based on the edit on the document, as taught by Ginetti, and to provide the sync buttons to update or synchronize local copies of users, as taught by Reddy. The motivation is to ensure all users can quickly align their views without affecting the ongoing edits.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 8 and rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights